Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + + +
independent review online
How was that trolling? The claims that were made were not facts, and were not supported by facts, so I said it needed citation. It even says that all claims must cited. I'm only following the rules.--[[User:Jselin|Jselin]] 16:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)
How was that trolling? The claims that were made were not facts, and were not supported by facts, so I said it needed citation. It even says that all claims must cited. I'm only following the rules.--[[User:Jselin|Jselin]] 16:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)
==Best==
Hi, Jim. I've heard of a project proposal within the scientific community to bypass traditional "[[peer review]]" and put article of journal-level quality online right away. This would subject the articles to massive [[independent review]] in a public way.
It also sidesteps the censorship or [[spiking]] of really good and important findings which expose errors in theories which the general public has come to regard as mainstream. I recall reading this week an email from [[Michael Mann] in which he boasted to a colleague that '''as a peer reviewer''' he was able to prevent an entire article from being published, merely on the grounds that it challenged [[AGW]], rather than because of any specific problem with the article itself, or the methods or ideas of its author. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:50, 18 December 2009 (EST)